Aaron Rogers

[dansz15]

come on guys ... the guy is a good qb ,, but that being said he is far from tested ... he is simpily a qb that has had a good year ... all im saying is lets not suga coat what we have ,,, we have a basiic 1st year qb ( no thing to write home about ) ...

Yes, but other than statistically, which he was stellar, do you think he has the potential to become one of the NFL's winning QB's not fantasy studs.

I personally, I do think he has the potential, with the right team around him to make a push at a very solid, winning QB that can lead to the promise land. Any thoughts?

 

[shiftysdad]

As I've said, he's good.

He's not a god of QBs, yet. But he's good.

Wait for the development and he can come out very well for us.

 

[PackersRS]

Rodgers was a coach's dream in '08. He took what the defense gave him & didn't make stupid mistakes. Well, almost (safeties). Where he needs to step up his game is dealing with the pass rush. All too often he'd cave under the pressure instead of looking for an escape route. That part of his game will take time.

All the great QBs were/are able to create great plays when defense thought they had the play covered. That kind of play will take Rodgers to the HOF.

I can't say he'll be able to create something out of nothing. (He has been great when throwing on the move, giving time for his receivers to get open) But he'll be a great QB. Don't know if HoF, but great. He needs to work on that, what you mentioned, when the rush comes, and he tucks in and gets the sack.
AND the thing that bothered me the most, is that he constantly missed the checkdown receiver, and thus tucked in and got sacked. He admitted that he only concentrates on one side of the field (which Tarkenton also said he did).

He has a cannon of an arm (MUCH, MUCH stronger than I thought), very good precision, specially in middle to long routes. What's funny is that his short passes aren't that great, a lot of times he throws them too hard, like in his first int. (of course, the receiver could've got it, but nonetheless...)

And you know what? I think the coach's dream thing hurt him. Too many times he played what MM told him to, when he could've shifted formations and such...

I think that'll improve this year. MM talked about the credibility and accountability thing, and we'll see him more loose, as well as more 4 and 5 receivers sets. Which with his scrambling ability, makes for a very dangerous formation.

You know a funny fact? His numbers were pretty damn similar to Steve Young's in his first season with the 49ers (Of course, he led his team to the playoffs, but that's not just on Rodgers, actually that's mostly not on him... AND he had previous playing time with the (dreadful) bucs).

 

[shiftysdad]

Honestly, at this stage, we'll never know.

He could crap out in the next couple years for all we know.

 

[longtimefan]

Packers’ 0-7 record in games decided by four points or fewer wasn’t entirely the quarterback’s fault

Rodgers did lead the team to two go-ahead field goals, only to watch the defense give up the lead, as well as setting up potential game-winning field goals that were missed in the closing seconds of two other games

WISCONSIN STATE JOURNAL

 

[shiftysdad]

It was a bad season last year. I think we can all agree on that.

 

[ThinkICare]

Yeah, last season was a huge time for Rodgers to get used to games and he seemed extremely poised and confident. Now, this year will be an adjusting period for the 3-4 defense.

 

[Zoidbergas]

Rogers is a good QB surrounded by the best receiving corps in the division. There is a good running back in Grant. I don't see how this team did so poorly last year. Was it the defense?

 

[ThinkICare]

Well, Grant was not the explosive running back he was two years ago. I remember him last year running for 1-4 yards 95 percent of the time and that doesn't really help. Rodgers being poised really helped us get through a few games. The defense was not that good even if they were great at turnovers, they couldn't stop teams when it counted and that's what hurt us in the long run for last year.

 

[OHIOFAN]

D.Levens, what I am saying is that I would take Rodgers early in his career over Favre early in his career. Rodgers struggled when he tried to pull the game out of his rear end, but Favre did also. All I am saying is that people never see any of Favre's weakness and are at awe with his cannon of an arm. I am not knocking Favre, I just think that Rodgers is going to be something special. I like Rodgers accurate arm, his scrambling ability is like Favre's was when he was younger and Rodger's game managing is fine. Rodgers had this team in position to win many games, look at missed field goals and the D falling apart. I am not foolish enough to say that Rodgers will break Brett's records, b/c that will take a Very long, great career. Bottom line is put Rodgers on any team that Favre has had and he would produce as many or more wins. This is just my opinion, and I may be biased b/c I have been wanting Brett to step aside for some time to give Rodgers a chance. The Packers have a great young qb who is not satisfied being ranked as a top 5 qb.

 

[longtimefan]

Rogers is a good QB surrounded by the best receiving corps in the division. There is a good running back in Grant. I don't see how this team did so poorly last year. Was it the defense?

rodgers did cost the Packers 2 or 3 games with some ints at the end...All be it that some ints came very close to end of game, and not so far in enemy territory, he still threw ints

1 missed Fg in Minny ( 20 secs left) and one blocked FG in Chicago ( 25 secs left )

And the one that sticks out to me the most Texan game

Game tied with 430 to go, pass to the 22 yard line, a hold on moll,pushes back to the 32, then a HUGE sack where Rodgers had no time to react back to the 42?? and a short completions then a punt..

If the 2 fgs were made ( those not Rodgers fault at all) and Moll does not get the holding call, the Texan game should been won, that SHOULD have been 3 wins and gives them a 9-7 record

Which would have meant the Bears 8-8 and the pack and minny tied for 1st

Yeah yeah yeah



would have could have....Point is I gave 3 games that were not rodgers fault for losses

 

[America]

Rodgers will not best ANY of BF's records....

.

I would agree that Rodgers will not top any of Favre's career volume stats.

But I think he has a very good chance at bettering some of Favre's single season numbers, or some of the career performance stats (completion %, QB rating, yards/attempt, etc.)

And, of course, I think there's a good chance that Rodgers will have more playoff success.

 

[shiftysdad]

Packers’ 0-7 record in games decided by four points or fewer wasn’t entirely the quarterback’s fault

Rodgers did lead the team to two go-ahead field goals, only to watch the defense give up the lead, as well as setting up potential game-winning field goals that were missed in the closing seconds of two other games

WISCONSIN STATE JOURNAL

The team's major problem right nowe is working together, not Aaron. And this here proves it.

 

[Philtration]

rodgers did cost the Packers 2 or 3 games with some ints at the end...All be it that some ints came very close to end of game, and not so far in enemy territory, he still threw ints

1 missed Fg in Minny ( 20 secs left) and one blocked FG in Chicago ( 25 secs left )

And the one that sticks out to me the most Texan game

Game tied with 430 to go, pass to the 22 yard line, a hold on moll,pushes back to the 32, then a HUGE sack where Rodgers had no time to react back to the 42?? and a short completions then a punt..

If the 2 fgs were made ( those not Rodgers fault at all) and Moll does not get the holding call, the Texan game should been won, that SHOULD have been 3 wins and gives them a 9-7 record

Which would have meant the Bears 8-8 and the pack and minny tied for 1st

Yeah yeah yeah



would have could have....Point is I gave 3 games that were not rodgers fault for losses

Most teams have that kind of stuff happen.
The Bears easily pissed away three games that were pretty much won and over with last year and that cost them the division.

 

[longtimefan]

Most teams have that kind of stuff happen.
The Bears easily pissed away three games that were pretty much won and over with last year and that cost them the division.

Yes Phil I know..

My point about it was people put ALL the losses on Rodgers when clearly that should not be the case for at least 2 of those game sI mentioned

 

[D.Levens]

Lynn ****ey and Jeff George threw for alot of yards too, but they didn't win many games....

Rodgers is not a winner, in my book.

He is a game manager that needs everything else to go right in order for him to win the game.

Favre WINS games with his ability and the fact that he never gives up.

Favre is a winner, and difference maker, and Rodgers isn't.

Put that in your pipe and shove it where the sun don't shine, Ted Thompson!

 

[America]

I think that if you look at Favre's career with the Packers you'll see the patent falsity of that claim.

He won 160 games in 16 seasons. 10 per season. Or two more per season than you'd have expected an average QB to win with an average team. And if you believe, as I do, that for most of the time Favre was in Green Bay he had an above average team around him, then his impact is less than two wins per season....probably more like one.

And that's overall. In his very good seasons, he was worth more than that; in his not so good seasons, he probably hurt more than he helped.

I have a chart that I can't seem to post here but it clearly shows that when we had very good scoring defenses (1993-1997, 2001, 2007) we made the playoffs and advanced. When we had just an AVERAGE scoring defense (1992, 1998, 1999, 2000) we either did not make the playoffs or we did not advance. And when we had poor defenses it was usually at least partially because we had an inordinate number of turnovers which put a warm offense against a tired defense on a short field.

So rather than say "Favre wins games", I think it would be more correct to say that the defense was responsible for much of our success during the Favre Era.

 

[D.Levens]

I think that if you look at Favre's career with the Packers you'll see the patent falsity of that claim.

He won 160 games in 16 seasons. 10 per season. Or two more per season than you'd have expected an average QB to win with an average team. And if you believe, as I do, that for most of the time Favre was in Green Bay he had an above average team around him, then his impact is less than two wins per season....probably more like one.

And that's overall. In his very good seasons, he was worth more than that; in his not so good seasons, he probably hurt more than he helped.

I have a chart that I can't seem to post here but it clearly shows that when we had very good scoring defenses (1993-1997, 2001, 2007) we made the playoffs and advanced. When we had just an AVERAGE scoring defense (1992, 1998, 1999, 2000) we either did not make the playoffs or we did not advance. And when we had poor defenses it was usually at least partially because we had an inordinate number of turnovers which put a warm offense against a tired defense on a short field.

So rather than say "Favre wins games", I think it would be more correct to say that the defense was responsible for much of our success during the Favre Era.

Thanks for your analysis, but that is unmitigated bull****

First off, Favre did NOT have above average teams for most of his time in Green Bay. Only in 95,96,97 you could make that statement. You are probably one of the Sherman bashers who blame Sherman for being a sh*t GM, yet illogically think that FAvre should have had a winning percentage with these bad Sherman teams. Do you not see the illogic in that?

Save your stat sheet. It won't amount to a hill of beans, anyway...

You can't quantify football with a spreadsheet. Favre won games and got them to the playoffs regularly with poor to mediocre talent..Billy Schroeder, anyone?...Robert Ferguson, Freeman, Brooks, etc..etc..and poor to downright sh*tty defenses...

Plus, he didn't have the luxury of having stability of coaching like Montana, Elway, Manning, Brady, etc...After Holmgren, he had the likes of Ray Rhodes, Sher-Rossley, and McCarthy...hardly Hall of Fame calliber coaches.

You need to come up with better rationalizations. I know they make you comfortable in your decision to back the loser, Ted Thompson (Mr 31-33), but they are FAR from any kind of truth or reality in this universe.

:jester:

 

[longtimefan]

Thanks for your analysis, but that is unmitigated bull****

First off, Favre did NOT have above average teams for most of his time in Green Bay. Only in 95,96,97 you could make that statement. You are probably one of the Sherman bashers who blame Sherman for being a sh*t GM, yet illogically think that FAvre should have had a winning percentage with these bad Sherman teams. Do you not see the illogic in that?

Save your stat sheet. It won't amount to a hill of beans, anyway...

You can't quantify football with a spreadsheet. Favre won games and got them to the playoffs regularly with poor to mediocre talent..Billy Schroeder, anyone?...Robert Ferguson, Freeman, Brooks, etc..etc..and poor to downright sh*tty defenses...

Plus, he didn't have the luxury of having stability of coaching like Montana, Elway, Manning, Brady, etc...After Holmgren, he had the likes of Ray Rhodes, Sher-Rossley, and McCarthy...hardly Hall of Fame calliber coaches.

You need to come up with better rationalizations. I know they make you comfortable in your decision to back the loser, Ted Thompson (Mr 31-33), but they are FAR from any kind of truth or reality in this universe.

:jester:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/

To me there are at least 3 above average teams

points scored and allowed

2007 over all ranking of 3rd
2003 over all ranking of 2nd
2002 over all ranking of 6th
2001 over all ranking of 6th

1994 over all ranking of 4th
1993 over all ranking of 7th

looks like a lot of above average teams

not just the 3 years you mentioned

The argument I hate when people say he was a winner is this..

You wont blame him on the 4-12 season, nor any playoff loss..

But yet fast to give him credit for SB win, and nothing to Desmond or Reggie,or Newsome,any of the D

Face it, he needed help just as EVERY q/b needs..

Marino as great as he was didnt have the D Brett had..

Montanta had the entire package team

Elway needed Davis to win a SB he failed every chance before that

 

[longtimefan]

Since 98 his playoff record is

3-6

and is only q/b in packer history to lose a playoff game at home

 

[America]

First off, Favre did NOT have above average teams for most of his time in Green Bay.

......... Favre won games and got them to the playoffs regularly with poor to mediocre talent..Billy Schroeder, anyone?...Robert Ferguson, Freeman, Brooks, etc..etc..and poor to downright sh*tty defenses...

I always love it when people are in denial of the facts. The reality is that the majority of the time the Packers fielded above average teams. The part about the "******" defenses is especially untrue.

During the Favre Era, the Packers finished 9th or better in scoring defense SEVEN TIMES. They finished in the top half of the league TWELVE TIMES. In fact, the only time that the Packers finished in the bottom half of the league in scoring and total yards were in 1999 and 2004.

Also, I'm very disappointed that you feel a need to spread crap on his teammates to make Favre smell better. This "poor to mediocre" talent includes quite a few guys who are going into the Packer HOF like Freeman, Levens, Green, Clifton, Tauscher, Driver, Franks, Chmura, Brooks, Sharpe, etc. etc. I'm sorry that you feel that the Packer HOF is in such bad shape that they have to admit "poor to mediocre" talents.

Favre is the most durable and most prolific QB in NFL history. But he didn't "win" any more games than he "lost". He had good teams around him most of his time in Green Bay and his success was closely tied to how well his defense played.

 

[D.Levens]

I always love it when people are in denial of the facts. The reality is that the majority of the time the Packers fielded above average teams. The part about the "******" defenses is especially untrue.

During the Favre Era, the Packers finished 9th or better in scoring defense SEVEN TIMES. They finished in the top half of the league TWELVE TIMES. In fact, the only time that the Packers finished in the bottom half of the league in scoring and total yards were in 1999 and 2004.

Also, I'm very disappointed that you feel a need to spread crap on his teammates to make Favre smell better. This "poor to mediocre" talent includes quite a few guys who are going into the Packer HOF like Freeman, Levens, Green, Clifton, Tauscher, Driver, Franks, Chmura, Brooks, Sharpe, etc. etc. I'm sorry that you feel that the Packer HOF is in such bad shape that they have to admit "poor to mediocre" talents.

Favre is the most durable and most prolific QB in NFL history. But he didn't "win" any more games than he "lost". He had good teams around him most of his time in Green Bay and his success was closely tied to how well his defense played.

The Packer Hall of Fame? Big deal...the only reason half of these guys are going in is BECAUSE of FAVRE...hahaha...You are the deluded one, my friend.

What is this scoring differential B.S....?

How were the defenses on the Sherman teams and for the last 10 years, or so? I'll tell you how, they sucked. I don't care what kind of lame statistics you want to dredge up, those defenses gave up ALOT of points, and the only reason the Packers won the division and made it to the playoffs was because of FAVRE...

Your animus against Favre is the only thing that stinks around here, my friend. Your trying to lay all of the burden on him for having to put up with sh*tty GM's (Sherman and Thompson), and mediocre talent. GB did not have the talent that N.E. and the Colts had for the last 10 years. If they did, Favre would have won 6 SB's by now....

Does your rampant homerism know no bounds?

You are ridiculous? Why is he a first ballot Hall of Famer? Tell me that, if he is mediocre, as you suggest, fool.

(Oh, but I'm sure you'll want to blame the Defense in defense of Aaron Rodgers 6-10 year last year, won't you, hypocrite?)

 

[PackersRS]

I don't care what kind of lame statistics you want to dredge up,

This quote wins it all...

 

[America]

Well Mr. Levens, you certainly convinced me. You've convinced me that you are uncomfortable with facts and nothing will change your opinion.

You've denigrated a majority of the Packers who've played over the last 10 years. You've denigrated the Packer HOF. You've denigrated the GMs and the HCs. All to make Favre look better.

If Favre really were half as great as you think he is, you wouldn't need to do that. Nobody has to slam Dungy or the Colts players to make Manning look better, nobody has to slam Belichick or the Patriots to make Brady look better, nobody has to slam Shanahan or the Broncos to make Elway look better.

You were given a link to see the facts for yourself but you didn't bother because if you had you wouldn't have had to ask the question about Sherman's teams.

I never said Favre was mediocre. Those are your words, not mine. He's a HOFer based on the body of his work. But I think if you look at the last 10 years he spent in Green Bay you see a better-than-average QB who was very error-prone, particularly in big games and playoffs.

 

[robdog]

Favre will be a HOFer even if he is the league leader in interceptions. Love the guy and glad the saga is over...